Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Integrating cogeneration and intermittent waste-heat recovery in food T

processing: Microturbines vs. ORC systems in the coffee roasting industry
⁎
Antonio M. Pantaleoa,b, , Julia Fordhama, Oyeniyi A. Oyewunmia, Pietro De Palmac,
Christos N. Markidesa
a
Clean Energy Processes (CEP) Laboratory, Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
b
Department of Agro-environmental Sciences, University of Bari, Via Amendola 165/A, 70125 Bari, Italy
c
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics, and Management, Polytechnic University of Bari, Via Re David 200, 70125 Bari, Italy

H I GH L IG H T S

• AA novel intermittent waste heat recovery system is investigated for coffee roasting processes.
• A real case study of a major coffee roasting firm is proposed.
• Keytechno-economic comparison of CHP and waste heat recovery configurations is provided.
• techno-economic factors influencing investment profitability is proposed.

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Coffee roasting is a highly energy intensive process wherein a large quantity of heat is discharged from the stack
Coffee roasting at medium-to-high temperatures. Much of the heat is released from the afterburner, which is required to remove
Intermittent heat recovery volatile organic compounds and other pollutants from the flue gases. In this work, intermittent waste-heat re-
Micro gas turbine covery via thermal energy storage (TES) and organic Rankine cycles (ORCs) is compared to combined heat and
Organic Rankine cycle
power (CHP) based on micro gas-turbines (MGTs) for a coffee roasting plant. With regard to the former, a
Waste heat recovery
promising solution is proposed that involves recovering waste heat from the flue gas stream by partial hot-gas
recycling at the rotating drum coffee roaster, and coupling this to a thermal store and an ORC engine for power
generation. The two solutions (CHP + MGT prime mover vs. waste-heat recovery + ORC engine) are in-
vestigated based on mass and energy balances, and a cost assessment methodology is adopted to compare the
profitability of three system configurations integrated into the selected roasting process. The case study involves
a major Italian roasting plant with a 3,000 kg per hour coffee production capacity. Three options are in-
vestigated: (i) intermittent waste-heat recovery from the hot flue-gases with an ORC engine coupled to a TES
system; (ii) regenerative topping MGT coupled to the existing modulating gas burner to generate hot air for the
roasting process; and (iii) non-regenerative topping MGT with direct recovery of the turbine outlet air for the
roasting process. The results show that the profitability of these investments is highly influenced by the natural
gas and electricity prices and by the coffee roasting production capacity. The CHP solution via an MGT appears
as a more profitable option than waste-heat recovery via an ORC engine primarily due to the intermittency of the
heat-source availability and the high electricity cost relative to the cost of natural gas.

1. Introduction
Waste heat recovery in industry is a topic of great importance and
has been attracting growing interest from diverse stakeholders [1]. In
particular, the food processing sector is a highly energy-intensive in-
dustry, which makes up 7% of total EU energy consumption [2], with
around 57% of the primary energy input being lost as waste heat during
the production [3]. Several investigations have been performed with
the aim of improving the efficiency of food production, including heat
and power cogeneration cycles [4] and waste heat recovery systems
[5]. Some studies propose waste heat recovery for drying or preheating
food products [6], or for other purposes such as space or district heating
[7]. When the waste-heat stream has a sufficient temperature level, it
can be used for power generation via mature technologies such as the

⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Agro-environmental Sciences, University of Bari, Via Amendola 165/A, 70125 Bari, Italy.
E-mail addresses: antonio.pantaleo@uniba.it, a.pantaleo@imperial.ac.uk (A.M. Pantaleo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.04.097
Received 9 January 2018; Received in revised form 13 April 2018; Accepted 28 April 2018
Available online 26 May 2018
0306-2619/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
CHP combined heat and power
LHV lower heating value
MGT micro gas-turbine
NG natural gas
ORC organic Rankine cycle
PM particulate matter
TES thermal energy storage
VOCs volatile organic compounds
Variables
c p,hr specific heat capacity of pressurized water in TES (J/kg K)
ηORC thermal efficiency of ORC engine (%)
hE ORC and MGT plant operating hours (h/year)
Kalina cycle [8], or the organic Rankine cycle [1,9,10], or even earlier-
stage technologies currently under development such as thermoacustic
[11] or thermofluidic heat engines [12]. In particular, the Non-Inertive-
Feedback Thermofuidic Engine (NIFTE) [13,14] and the Up-THERM
heat converter [15,16] have been shown to be competitive with es-
tablished technologies, such as ORCs [17], due to their small number of
moving parts, and low capital and running costs. Nevertheless, ORC
technology is more established, commercially available and has been
selected for the present study.
Intermittent heat recovery applications can be included, such as
sintering processes [18], or furnaces in steel manufacturing [19] and
combined cycles where cogenerated heat from onsite power production
is combined to waste heat streams [20], with the possibility to adopt
multi-fuel energy sources [21]. Most of the heat recovery studies have
been focused so far on continuous processes, with limited attention to
recovering waste heat from batch processes [22]. However, around
50% of industrial food processes use batch processes, which are typi-
cally needed to improve the quality and consistency of the product [23]
such as coffee roasting [24], dairy pasteurization [25] and alcoholic
beverage production [26]. The drawback of batch processes is the
substantial amount of waste heat emitted intermittently and at variable
temperature level, preventing conventional heat recovery methods
from being used. Waste heat recovery from batch processes in industrial
and food processing sectors have been investigated in the literature
implementing heat integration approaches [27], optimising the plant
layout [28] and improving the efficiency of the process through heat
stream analyses [29]. Heat integration can be either direct or indirect
[30], the latter requiring a thermal energy storage (TES) system [31].
TES systems have been shown to be the most successful for recovering
waste heat in industrial batch plants [32], including food processing
applications and multipurpose batch plants [33].
The present work considers a techno-economic analysis of a waste-
heat recovery system for an intermittent coffee-roasting process based
on the integration of a TES system with an ORC plant. The novelty of
this study is in the optimization of the ORC engine for steady-state
operation, considering different working fluids and temperature levels,
and in the decoupling of the operation of the ORC plant from the in-
termittent waste-heat source supply via proper sizing of the TES. The
profitability of the proposed solution is verified with respect to standard
alternative solutions based on the use of natural-gas-fired (NG) cogen-
erative micro gas-turbines (MGTs).
The case study of a major coffee processing plant with a 3000 kg/h
production capacity and the Italian electricity/(NG) cost scenario are
used for the techno-economic assessment. Three technical solutions for
increasing the efficiency and reducing the energy costs of the coffee
783
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
hdrum enthalpy of flue gas in drum (J/kg)
h in enthalpy of flue gas at MGT outlet (J/kg)
ṁ gas turbine mass flow rate (kg/s)
mhr mass of water in the TES (kg)
ṁ hr mass flow rate of water in TES (kg/s)
Pcond ORC working fluid condensation pressure (Pa, bar)
Pevap ORC working fluid evaporation pressure (Pa, bar)
PE electric power output from MGT and ORC (W)
Q̇ thermal power recovered from cycle (W)
Q̇ hr intermittent rate of heat transfer from flue gases to TES
(W)
̇
QORC constant heat transfer rate from pressurized water to ORC
(W)
Thr temperature of the pressurized water in the TES (°C)
Thr,sup supply temperature of water in TES (K, °C)
Thr,ret return temperature of water in TES (K, °C)
̇
WORC net power output from ORC engine (W)
roasting process are considered: (1) intermittent waste-heat recovery
from the hot flue-gases through an ORC engine coupled to TES; (2)
regenerative MGT coupled to the existing modulating gas burner to
generate hot air for the roasting process and electricity to match electric
demand of the process; (3) non-regenerative MGT with direct recovery
of turbine outlet air for the roasting process by means of an afterburner
that modulates the heat demand of the roasting process. The investment
profitability sensitivity to the main techno-economic process para-
meters (i.e. daily roasting operating hours and avoided cost of elec-
tricity) is discussed.
The relevance of the research relies in comparing different energy
saving strategies integrated in the coffee production process in presence
of intermittent waste heat source, and in identifying the key factors that
influence their relative profitability. The conclusions and insights from
this work are transferable to other batch food production processes. The
coffee roasting process features and thermal storage options are in-
troduced in Sections 2 and 3, while Section 4 presents the methodology,
Section 5 describes the application to the three case studies, Section 6
reports the techno-economic input data and cost-benefit analysis, and
finally Section 7 proposes a comparison of the investment profitability
and a sensitivity analysis based on different CHP sizes. The results show
that the profitability of these investments is highly influenced by the
natural gas and electricity cost and by the coffee roasting production
capacity.
2. Coffee roasting process
Coffee roasting is a unique source of intermittent waste heat due to
the relatively high temperature of the exhaust gas and the typical cyclic
process. The coffee roasting industry is a growing food processing
segment with 6.7 billion kg of coffee being roasted every year [34]. It
requires 11.2 × 1012 kJ of input energy annually, with 75% of the en-
ergy being wasted as heat through the stack [35]. A big challenge for
roasting is to rapidly heat the air before introducing it into the batch. To
achieve this rapid heating, the roasters use a very energy intensive and
quite inefficient process.
Coffee roasting is a process that converts green coffee beans into
beans that can be ground, brewed and consumed with a complex aroma
and flavour. Coffee roasting technologies come in several different
configurations with batch roasters and continuous roasters the most
common [36]. Continuous coffee roasters involve a conveyor belt that
slowly moves the beans through the furnace, roasting them con-
tinuously and in large quantity. Batch coffee roasters operate in batches
and allow higher process uniformity and quality of the beans. The op-
eration of batch gas-fired coffee roasters equipped with afterburners is
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

well known and widely described in literature [37] with emphasis on of the compounds have the tendency to condense as the temperature
modelling the heat released from the process [38] and the effects on the drops during the heat exchange. This condensation on the surfaces of
beans being roasted [39]. In the case of batch coffee roasters, the the heat exchanger, known as fouling, reduces the efficiency of the heat
roasting happens in cycles in which the green coffee beans enter the transfer and the overall heat recovery rate. The build-up of compounds
roasting drum and are heated to the desired temperature of 200–250 °C lowers the thermal conductivity of the surfaces and the heat recovery
before being transferred to a cooling chamber [40]. A cycle lasts 10 to potential drops [49]. Fouling can have major impacts on not only the
20 minutes depending on the desired degree of roasting [41], and efficiency of the process [50], but also on the equipment costs [51]. In
during this time the temperature gradient is kept constant. The roasting addition, the build-up of condensates must be monitored and cleaned,
drum is a horizontal rotating chamber that rotates at a specified speed increasing the maintenance and operational costs. If the fouling is ig-
to induce mixing without the beans getting stuck to the walls from the nored, more detrimental problems can arise, such as hot spots on the
inherent centrifugal force. Hot air is generated in a combustion surfaces of the heat exchanger causing mechanical failure.
chamber, usually fuelled by natural gas (NG), and passes through the
roasting drum, directly heating the beans to the desired temperature.
3. Thermal energy storage system
The first stage of coffee roasting involves drying, i.e., evaporation of the
water content in the beans, at temperatures between 160 and 190 °C
The recovery of intermittent waste heat requires the adoption of
[42]. After drying, the bean undergoes a series of chemical pyrolysis
suitable thermal storage to decouple the heat source and the energy
reactions at a temperature of 200–250 °C [43], which give the coffee its
conversion process. Several studies have modelled and optimized the
final flavour and aroma. During pyrolysis, there is also the release of
design of TES in intermittent processes [52], considering variable
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon dioxide, and particulate
temperature levels [53] and phase-change materials (PCMs), integrated
matter (PM) from the roasted chaff that are added to the flue gases in
with ORCs [54]. The design of the TES and of the coupled energy-
the roasting drum [44]. When too many volatiles are released from the
conversion systems depends on several technical factors (i.e. the size of
bean at temperatures above 200 °C, the aroma of the coffee can de-
batch process and the amplitude of the fluctuation of available waste
crease. For this reason, the temperature gradient during the process
heat) and economic factors (i.e. investment costs and avoided costs of
must be constant and a uniform and gradual heating of the beans from
onsite electricity). This justifies the adoption of classic thermo-eco-
their surface to the core must be achieved. This is done by means of a
nomic optimization approaches, where the inter-relationships between
modulating furnace that can control the heat provided to the roasting
component costs and their technical performance are taken into ac-
drum. A part of the flue-gas flow is returned to the combustion chamber
count [55]. In particular, the optimal design of the TES strongly de-
at 180–230 °C through a heat exchanger to recover a fraction of the
pends on the choice of the storage material and its operating conditions
waste heat and increase the efficiency of the process via a semi-closed
in specific intermittent processes [56]. When selecting a TES for re-
loop [45], as reported in the schematic of Fig. 1.
covering of intermittent waste heat, sensible-heat storage using liquid
The VOCs, PM and CO2 content in the remaining flue gas stream
water represents a low-cost solution over a range of application tem-
must be reduced before this is discharged into the atmosphere to
peratures. The maximum temperature of liquid water storage depends
comply with air quality standards. Therefore, the flue gas stream passes
on the boiling temperature of water at the considered operational
through a cyclone to remove particulates and then through an after-
pressure. Domestic hot water (DHW) and low temperature hot water
burner to combust pollutants that are released from the beans during
(LTHW) storage are typically limited to maximum temperatures of
the roasting phase. Finally, the steam is released through a chimney
120 °C and pressure of 3 bar. For district heating and process-heat ap-
into the atmosphere at temperatures of 350–400 °C. Afterburners are an
plications, medium temperature hot water (MTHW) systems use cir-
important part of the coffee roasting process as environmental emission
culating water at temperatures of 120–180 °C and pressures up to
regulations on particulate matter are becoming stricter in Italy [46] and
11 bar, while high temperature hot water (HTHW) systems are designed
around the world [47]. Two main types of afterburners are used: direct-
for water temperatures of 180–220 °C and pressures up to 21 bar. In this
fired and catalytic. The former fire the flue gas at extremely high
case, hot water storage systems must be designed to allow for thermal
temperatures of 760 °C and employ NG as fuel. The latter use catalysts
expansion of the hot water as it is heated, and thus storage tanks are
to break down the flue gas pollutants chemically and require tem-
often designed to include a compressible gas cushion (steam, air or inert
perature around 400 °C. The catalysts need to be replaced every three to
gas) to accommodate this expansion. Synthetic heat transfer oils (e.g.,
four years, resulting in higher operation and maintenance costs [48].
Therminol, Dowtherm) are a viable alternative for sensible heat storage
Due to the composition of the flue gas leaving the afterburner, some
at temperatures of 100–200 °C that do not require pressurization to

Fig. 1. Schematic of the coffee roasting process with semi-closed loop and combustion air recirculation.

784
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

prevent boiling. This represents a trade-off in terms of the lower cost of ̇ gas (t ) = Vmin
Vflue ̇ + at (1)
storage vessel versus the higher cost of the storage media. Thermal
storage using molten salts may be suitable for even higher temperature where a is a suitable constant that can be known directly or found from
ranges (nitrate salts are typically used in concentrating solar power the maximum flue-gas flow rate.
systems at temperatures of 390 °C), however specific system costs are The TES system is composed of a pressurized water tank and two
comparatively high due to the material compatibility requirements for heat exchangers. In one of these heat exchangers, the water receives
storage vessels, pumps, heat exchangers and pipelines [57]. Solid-liquid energy intermittently from the hot flue gases, as shown in Fig. 2 (right).
latent heat storage using organic or inorganic (salt-based) PCMs are an On the other hand, the water provides the steady thermal power to the
option that has recently received much attention for a range of appli- ORC plant in another heat exchanger. The unsteady energy balance
cations where compact TES is required [58], including small-scale ap- over the TES system is written as:
plications for solar thermal systems [59]. However, the costs of com- dThr
Vhr (ρc p) hr ̇
= QORC + Q̇ hr (t )
mercial PCM storage solutions are relatively high at present, in part due dt (2)
to the challenges associated with encapsulation and heat exchanger
design. Some authors have also considered the potential of so-called where Thr , ρ hr , Vhr , and c p,hr are the temperature, density, storage volume
“direct storage” in the ORC working fluid as it changes phase from li- of the tank and specific heat capacity of the pressurized-water in the
heat recovery loop, respectively. Here, QORC ̇ is the heat transfer rate
quid to vapour [60]. While this potentially allows the omission of ad-
from the pressurized-water stream to the ORC working fluid in the ORC
ditional circulation loops and heat exchangers, the low energy storage
evaporator:
density and the difficulty in maintaining a steady pressure of the vapour
supply to the expander are major challenges [61,62]. ̇
QORC = ṁ hr c p,hr (Thr,sup−Thr,return ) (3)

4. Methodology and modelling approach
The present analysis investigates the possibility of exploiting an
unsteady waste-heat source using an ORC engine. The best working
conditions for such a plant can be obtained when it is optimized for
steady-state operation. Therefore, we design the thermal energy storage
system in order to attenuate the temperature variations of the heat
source. We choose a low-cost pressurized water TES system whose ca-
pacity has to be selected in order to guarantee a negligible temperature
oscillation. This pressurized-water loop acts as the heat source for the
subcritical and recuperative ORC engine, ensuring a constant avail-
ability of heat to the engine. In this section, the model employed for
designing the TES system and the optimization approaches for de-
signing the ORC engine are described.
4.1. Thermal energy storage
The process of interest is periodic over a period Δt and lends itself to
TES. During this time interval, the flue-gas flow rate (in Nm3/s) varies
linearly with time between a minimum (Vmin ̇ ) and a maximum value, or
as:
where Thr,sup and Thr,return are the temperatures of the water at the outlet
and at the inlet of the tank. Q̇ hr (t ) is the (fluctuating) rate of heat
transfer from the flue gases to the heat recovery loop:
Q̇ hr (t ) = (ρc p ΔTV̇ (t )) flue gas (4)
where ΔT is the temperature drop of the flue gases in the heat ex-
changer.
The heat storage tank is modelled as a continuously stirred tank,
assuming no heat losses to the environment. The dynamic model of the
storage tank is a lumped model, with the assumption that the tank is
well mixed and hence the spatial variation of the temperature within
the tank is negligible. For the purposes of detailed engineering designs,
other viable options may include multi-nodal tanks and stratified tanks,
as well as molten salt and phase-change material systems.
The pressurized water circulation rate, ṁ hr is determined by bal-
ancing the energy transferred from the flue gas with the energy re-
ceived by the ORC evaporator over a cycle:
Δt
((ρc p ΔT )) flue gas ∫0 ̇ gas (t )dt = ṁ hr c p,hr ( (Thr,sup−Thr,return ) )Δt
Vflue (5)
The pressurized water is returned to the storage tank at a constant
temperature (Thr,return ), while it can be supplied to the ORC engine at a

Fig. 2. Left: Schematic of pressurized-water heat recovery unit and recuperative ORC engine. Right: Temporal profile of the thermal power supplied to the TES
system (values are referred to the application described in next section and to the assumption of TES temperature of 100 °C).

785
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

“set-point” temperature (Thr,sup ) ranging from 100 °C to 150 °C. This simultaneous ORC system optimization and working-fluid design, but
temperature range has been selected to ensure the thermal stability of which are beyond the scope of this paper, the interested reader can
the ORC working fluids. In general, the temperature of the water in the refer to Refs. [64–66].
tank is affected by temporal variations. However, for a sufficiently large With the thermal storage as the heat source, the ORC engine is
value of the volume of the tank, the oscillations of the water tem- ̇ , for each of the selected
designed to maximize its net power output, Wnet
perature around the set-point value become negligible and a steady working fluids using the interior point optimization algorithm [67]. The
value of the heat power transferred to the ORC plant can be guaranteed. following constraints are imposed:
ΔTpinch ⩾ ΔTmin (13)
4.2. ORC engine design
T4 ⩾ Tdew (Pcond ) (14)
The ORC engine, shown in Fig. 2 (left), is assumed to be subcritical,
due to the low temperature of the heat source (the pressurized water); Pcond ⩽ Pevap ⩽ Pcrit (15)
the system also features a recuperator or an internal heat exchanger to
Pcond ⩾ 1bar (16)
improve its thermal efficiency and power output. In the heat ex-
changers (evaporator, condenser and recuperator), the energy balance The first constraint in Eq. (13) ensures that the heat exchangers
is carried out on both the hot and cold streams, with the assumption of (evaporator, condenser and recuperator) are designed such that their
no heat losses in the system, isobaric processes, and with a minimum pinch-point temperature difference (ΔTpinch ) is greater than a set
temperature difference ΔTmin = 10 °C [5,63]. The cycle calculations minimum (ΔTmin ) of 10 °C. In addition, T4 , the turbine outlet tempera-
have been performed neglecting the small temperature variation of the ture, is constrained to be higher than or equal to the dew point tem-
supply temperature and considering a constant set point temperature, perature at the condensation pressure (Eq. (14)) so that the working
Thr,sup . fluid at the turbine outlet is always in the vapour state and there is no
The required power of the pump is calculated by using an isentropic chance of liquid droplet formation in the expander, so ensuring that the
efficiency ηs,pump : challenges associated with wet expansion are avoided. To reduce ca-
ṁ wf (h2,s−h1) pital costs, the system is kept subcritical (Eq. (15)) by keeping the
̇
Wpump = ṁ wf (h2−h1) = evaporation pressure below the critical pressure. Finally, by the con-
ηs,pump (6)
straints of Eq. (16), the condensation pressure must be equal to or larger
where ṁ wf is the mass flow rate of the working fluid, h is its enthalpy, than the ambient pressure to avoid sub-atmospheric pressures in the
the subscript “s” indicates isentropic conditions, and ηs,pump is the cycle and consequently high component costs.
isentropic efficiency of the pump, which is set to 85%.
The temperature of the working fluid at State 3 can vary between 4.3. Cost analysis
the dew point temperature at the evaporation pressure (no super-
heating) and its maximum allowed temperature (i.e., Ths,sup − ΔTmin), The cost assessment of the ORC unit has been carried out con-
corresponding to the maximum degree of superheating (θsh): sidering the coffee roasting heat exchanger, the TES, the ORC pump,
T3−Tdew (Pevap) ORC heat exchangers and ORC expander addressed individually, in
θsh = order to calculate the turn-key cost of the system. A dual stage screw
Ths−ΔTmin−Tdew (Pevap) (7) expander has been selected. In the comparative case of MGT, cost
with 0 ⩽ θsh ⩽ 1. component data have been assumed directly from manufacturers.
Assuming an isobaric heat-addition process, the rate of heat input The cost correlations chosen for the heat exchanger and pumps are
from the heat source is given by: those from [68], subsequently normalised to 2018 prices using the
Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI).
̇
QORC = ṁ wf (h3−h2r ) = ṁ hr c p,hr (Thr,sup−Thr,return ) (8) For each double-pipe heat exchanger, the cost CHX is given by [68]:
while the power that can be extracted from the cycle in the expander is CHX = Fm Fp e 7.146 + 0.16·ln(10.7639·A) (17)
given by:
̇ = ṁ wf (h3−h4 ) = ηs,exp ṁ wf (h3−h4,s)
Wexp P−1.013 P−1.013 2
(9) Fp = 0.8510 + 0.1292⎛ ⎞ + 0.0198⎛ ⎞ for P > 42.383
⎝ 41.37 ⎠ ⎝ 41.37 ⎠
with the isentropic efficiency ηs,exp set to 75%, which is in the middle bar(a) (18)
range of literature values.
2
The thermal power exchanged in the recuperator is given by: where A is the total heat transfer area in m and Fm accounts for ma-
terial costs, equal to 2 for a stainless steel inner pipe and carbon steel
̇ = ṁ wf (h4r −h1) = ṁ wf (h2r−h2)
Qout (10) outer pipe and 3 for both pipes in stainless steel. The former is used for
with heat rejected from the ORC in the condenser to the heat sink such the ORC unit, while the stainless-steel outer pipe is required for the
that: intermittent heat recovery system coupled to the coffee roasting flue
gases and charging the thermal energy storage, as a consequence of the
̇ = ṁ wf (h4r −h1) = ṁ cs cp,cs (Tcs,out−Tcs,in )
Qout (11) corrosive properties of these gases. Fp is a pressure factor, equal to 1 for
where the inlet and outlet temperatures of the heat sink are set to pressures P below 42.383 bar(a) (600 psig) and evaluated by Eq. (18)
Tcs,in = 20 °C and Tcs,out = 30 °C. for pressures above this value.
Finally, the efficiency of the ORC engine is defined as: For the pump and motor [68]:
2
̇
Wnet ̇ −Wpump
Wexp ̇ ̇ ) = e 9.72 − 0.602·lnSp+ 0.0519·(lnSp)
CP (Sp,Wm
ηORC = =
̇
QORC ̇
QORC (12) + e5.83 + 0.131·lnẆm+ 0.0533·(lnẆm)
2 + 0.0286·(lnẆ )3 − 0.00355·(lnẆ ) 4
m m

Several low-temperature ORC working fluids have been compared (19)

in this work, results for which are later reported in Table 3 and Fig. 6. 0.5
ΔP ⎞
The working fluids are the alkanes, butane and pentane, the refrigerants Sp = 15,850·V̇ ·⎜⎛3.2808 ⎟

⎝ ρg ⎠ (20)
R227ea and R245fa, and the more recent refrigerant blends R1233zd,
R1234yf, and R1234ze. For more advanced methodologies aimed at where Sp ̇ is the motor power in
is a pump size factor, and Wm

786
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
horsepower (HP).
Costs for the screw expander(s) CE,s are taken from [69], who de-
veloped a correlation based on costs for refrigerant screw compressors:
̇ + 3344.4
CE,s = 231,300Vout
where V̇ out is the volumetric flow rate at the expander exhaust in m3/s.
The two stages of the screw expander are assessed individually using
the same correlation.
The power block cost of the ORC engine is approximated by the sum
of the component costs: evaporator, condenser, pump and motor, and
expander. This is subsequently converted into a total capital investment
for the ORC, factoring in site preparation, service facilities, con-
tingencies, start-up costs, and contractors’ fees. The power block ac-
counts for 77% of the ORC capital investment once these costs are in-
cluded.
4.4. Levelized cost of energy and economic analysis
The Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCE) is calculated assuming op-
eration of the ORC and MGT systems only during the roasting plant
operation, i.e. when intermittent waste heat is available:
fa ·I + CT,C·NC
LCE =
PE·hE
where NC is the number of roasting cycles per year; hE represents the
plant annual operating hours; fa is the annuity factor calculated by Eq.
(23), with r being the cost of capital and Vu the investment lifetime:
r 250 kg of beans per cycle respectively, with each cycle lasting 10 min.
fa = (years)−1
1−(1 + r )−Vu
Moreover, I is the investment cost, CT,C is the operating cost (fuel
and maintenance) during each roasting cycle and PE represents the
installed electric power. This operation mode is the only one available
in the case of intermittent waste heat recovered by ORC (Case 1 of next
section), unless an external heating source is adopted, to integrate the
heat source when the roasting process is not in operation, which is an
option not addressed here. On the contrary, in the case of cogenerative
MGT (Case 2 and 3 of the next section) the CHP can operate in-
dependently from the roasting process and generate electricity base-
load; this electricity can be consumed onsite to match the process de-
mand or fed into the grid. The operation strategy influences the
investment profitability, since the electricity revenues can be re-
presented by: (i) the avoided cost of supply, in case of onsite con-
sumption and contemporarily generation and demand; (ii) the elec-
tricity feed-in price, in case of sales to the grid; (iii) a share of the cost of
Fig. 3. Flow chart of the coffee roasting process.
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
supply, when the net metering option is assumed and electricity is fed
into the grid when exceeding the demand and withdrawn when demand
exceeds generation (in this case the electricity cost components of
transport, distribution and dispatching are usually charged to the end
(21) user). For this purpose, in the proposed methodology for revenues
calculation and profitability analysis, the specific electric load profile
and cost of electricity of the firm is considered, to evaluate the con-
temporaneity of electricity generation and demand. Moreover, the
Italian energy regulatory framework for decentralized and onsite gen-
eration is considered, with the assumption to operate in net metering to
the grid and generate, on an annual basis, the same quantity of elec-
tricity consumed by the load. This allows a fair comparison between the
most profitable operating strategy for studies of onsite cogeneration via
MGTs and intermittent waste heat recovery via ORCs.
The financial appraisal of investment is carried out assuming the
following hypotheses: 20 years of plant lifetime (VU); no ‘re-powering’
throughout the 20 years; zero decommissioning costs; capital assets
depreciated using a straight-line depreciation over 20 years; cost of
capital (net of inflation) r equal to 5%; corporation tax neglected; no
capital investments subsidies; maintenance costs, fuel supply costs,
electricity and natural gas prices held constant (in real 2018 values).
(22) 5. Application to the selected coffee roasting plant
The coffee roasting production site considered in this study is a large
plant in Italy with a roasting capacity of 3000 kg/h. The plant operates
6 h per day (1560 h per year). The site comprises two roasting units of
(23) The modulating burners and afterburner are both fuelled by NG. Each
cycle requires 1.5 MJ of thermal energy per kg of beans, or 375 MJ per
cycle. Operating the plant for 6 h per day and 5 days a week requires
7020 GJ of natural gas and 800 MWh of electricity per year. The
modulating burner operates in the range of 175–940 kW and the tem-
perature of the exhaust gas from the stack is in the range 350–400 °C
(this temperature is controlled modulating the NG flow rate in the
afterburner). A schematic of the investigated roasting process is shown
in Fig. 3, which reports the total energy consumption and roasting ca-
pacity per cycle (sum of the two roasting units).
The roasting process discharges medium/high temperature heat,
and it is possible to improve the overall efficiency recovering the
thermal energy content of the flue gases via an ORC engine, as de-
scribed below. The performance and profitability of such a technology
are compared with two more standard solutions consisting of re-
covering thermal energy from a topping MGT plant.
787
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

5.1. Case Study 1: Waste-heat recovery via ORC Table 1

Charge time of the thermal energy storage system as a function of the storage
An ORC system is combined with the roasting plant through the use volume and supply temperature. The bold row represents the selected storage
of a TES system recovering the intermittent waste heat from the level.
afterburner, as shown by the scheme in Fig. 4. We assume that the Vhr (L) Charge time (min)
roasting process lasts Δt = 10 min. The flue gases exit the afterburner at
temperature in the range of 350–400 °C and at a flow rate that varies 100 °C 110 °C 120 °C 130 °C 140 °C 150 °C

linearly between 2500 and 4500 Nm3/h in each 10-min cycle. With
these assumptions, the coefficients in Eq. (2) are Vmin ̇ = 0.6944 Nm3/s
and a= 9.259 × 10−4 Nm3/s2.
The temperature drop of the flue gas in Eq. (5) is kept constant at
230 °C, while the input temperature is in the range 350–400 °C, so
achieving a correspondent TES temperature in the range of 100–150 °C.
The pressurized water is returned to the storage tank at a constant
temperature Thr,return = 90 °C. For each value of the set-point tempera-
ture 100 ° C⩽ Thr,sup ⩽ 150 °C, ṁ hr is calculated by Eq. (5). It follows that
over each cycle an average value of thermal power equal to 288 kW is
supplied to the ORC during the coffee roasting process.
Three key variables relevant to the size of the pressurized water
storage tank volume (Vhr ) have to be minimized: (1) charging time; (2)
investment cost of the storage; (3) fluctuations of Thr,sup to ensure a
fairly constant power production from the ORC engine. The first two
require the storage volume to be minimized while the third requires the
volume to be maximized, hence a balance must be struck. In terms of
the charging time, we assume that at the start of operation the tem-
perature of the storage system can be increased from ambient condi-
tions (∼20 °C) to the set point in two cycles or less (i.e., < 20 min). The
fluctuations in the supply temperature (Thr,sup ) around the set point are
also expected not to exceed ± 2 °C, to not affect the ORC operation. The
charging time of the storage system at different storage volumes is re-
ported in Table 1. It has been computed by Eq. (2) with QORC ̇ = 0.
Moreover, integrating Eq. (2) in time, after substitution of Eq. (3) for
̇ , the fluctuations of the supply temperature around the set point
QORC
can be obtained. These temperature fluctuations are reported in Fig. 5
for three values of the set-point temperature and five values of the tank
volume. As expected, the lower storage volumes provide faster charging
for the storage system, with charging times less than a cycle period
(< 10 min). However, the storage volumes between 1 L and 100 L offer
no significant improvement to the storage system in terms of mini-
mizing the supply temperature fluctuations, with fluctuations ex-
ceeding ± 5 °C in the 120 °C case and exceeding ± 10 °C in the 150 °C
case. The fluctuations in the supply temperature fall below ± 2 °C
and ± 1 °C when the storage volumes exceed 500 and 1000 L, respec-
tively. While higher storage volumes (e.g., > 500 L) will lead to better
smoothening of the supply temperature, they will lead to very high
charging times, exceeding 3 cycles when Vhw = 1000 L. Thus, the
thermal storage is designed with an intermediate volume of 500 L,
50 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.1
100 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.9
500 10.0 11.6 13.0 14.4 15.6 16.8
1000 19.9 23.0 25.6 27.8 29.9 32.9
which gives fluctuations below ± 2 °C and charging times less than
20 min (2 cycles/periods).
The ORC power system is optimized for maximum power produc-
tion and the results of the simulation are presented in Table 2 and
Fig. 6. For brevity, Table 2 provides only the results for Thr,sup = 120 °C
and Thr,sup = 150 °C, using, butane, pentane, R227ea, R245fa, and
R1234ze, whereas, Fig. 6 shows the maximum power and the re-
cuperated thermal power for all fluids and set-point temperatures in the
range 100–150 °C. In order to keep the system subcritical, the eva-
poration pressures of the working fluids are constrained to a maximum
of 95% of the critical pressure [70,71]. It should be noted that while the
same amount of heat (∼288 kW) is supplied in all the cases, the pres-
surized water flow rate (ṁ hr ) varies with the heat supply temperature as
dictated by Eq. (6), such that, for example, the flow rate for the cases
with set point temperature of 120 °C (ΔThr = 30 °C) is double than that
for the 150 °C cases (ΔThr = 60 °C).
However, the power output increases with the supply temperature;
at a supply temperature of 100 °C, the ORC engine delivers between
20 kWe and 24 kWe while it delivers over 30 kWe at a supply tem-
perature of 150 °C. This is a result of the higher thermal efficiency of the
ORC in the 150 °C case, enabled by the higher average temperature of
heat addition, due to the higher NG consumption in the afterburner. It
is to be expected that the thermal efficiencies of the ORC engine follow
the same trends as the power output in Fig. 6 since the same amount of
heat is transferred from the pressurized water to the working fluid in all
cases. At set-point temperatures below 120 °C, pentane delivers the
highest net power output (and thermal efficiency) amongst the working
fluids considered; other fluids such as butane, R245fa and R1233zd also
deliver high power comparable to pentane. Above 120 °C, the best
working fluids are R227ea, R1234ze and R1234yf. This reflects the
influence of the thermal energy storage system on the selection of ORC
working fluid and needs for an integrated optimization of storage and
energy conversion via ORC in presence of intermittent heat sources.
The recuperator (Fig. 2, left) improves the ORC efficiency and

Fig. 4. Case Study 1: Waste-heat recovery from flue gases via an ORC engine.

788
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
Fig. 5. Temporal variations of the ORC supply temperature (Thr,sup ) around a set-point temperature (Thr,sup ) of 100 °C, 120 °C and 150 °C, as functions of the storage
volume ranging from 1 L to 1000 L of pressurized water.
power output, since up to 98 kW of power is ‘internally recovered’
within the ORC engine. The recuperator is an essential component due
to the constraint on the heat source outlet temperature [72]. For most
of the working fluids, the amount of recuperated heat increases with
supply temperature, reaching a peak at 120 °C or 130 °C, after which it
declines. However, for R227ea and R1234yf, the amount of recuperated
heat always increases with the supply temperature, and no decline is
noticed. While the evaporation pressure always increases with the
supply temperature for the other fluids, for these fluids, the evaporation
pressure/temperature remains constrained at a constant value (27.8 bar
for R227ea and 32.1 bar for R1234yf) as the supply temperature is in-
creased from 120 °C to 150 °C, due to the constraint of subcritical cycle.
This additional (active) constraint on the cycle dictates the requirement
of further recuperation to deliver the maximum power.
̇ ) and recuperator heat load (Q̇recup ) of the ORC engine at pressurized water set point supply temperatures ranging from
Fig. 6. Maximum net power output (Wnet
100 °C to 150 °C.
789
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
5.2. Case Study 2: Benchmark scenario of regenerative CHP-MGT
As a benchmark scenario, a regenerative MGT is added to the system
in order to generate the required power for the roasting plant and to
recover the exhaust heat from the turbine for the roasting process. An
MGT is preferred to a reciprocating engine for its higher mass flow and
lower exhaust gas temperature, which match the mass flow and tem-
perature required by the roasting process. Moreover, the continuous
fuel combustion system of the MGT reduces the pollutant emissions in
comparison to a piston engine. A possible solution where a topping
MGT is installed before the fresh air inlet is reported in Fig. 7. For the
analysis of this scenario, a commercially available regenerative AE-
T100NG MGT manufactured by Ansaldo Energy is considered, and
technical data are provided in [73]. The MGT exhaust gas is mixed to
the recirculated stream and driven to the furnace, where the tempera-
ture is adjusted by means of the existing burner before entering the
roasting drum. Assuming that the coffee roasting process is carried out
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

Table 2
Maximum net power output and cycle design conditions of the ORC engine for selected working fluids. Average input power to the thermal storage over the 10 min
roasting period is 288 kWt.
Working fluid Thr,sup = 120 °C Thr,sup = 150 °C

Butane Pentane R227ea R245fa R1234ze Butane Pentane R227ea R245fa R1234ze

WORĊ (kW) 25.5 25.3 25.9 25.6 25.7 29.6 29.1 31.5 29.7 32.5
ηORC (%) 9.07 8.99 9.21 9.10 9.13 10.5 10.3 11.2 10.5 11.5
Pevap (bar) 11.1 4.0 23.4 8.8 24.5 16.2 5.5 27.8 13.6 34.5
Pcond (bar) 3.73 1.14 6.84 2.46 7.52 3.73 1.14 6.84 2.46 7.51
̇
Qrecup (kW) 43.7 42.1 56.9 41.8 31.2 11.7 19.6 96.4 11.3 44.7

Table 3 means a minor perturbation to the original process.

Composition of flue gas streams (mass %).
Composition From MGT From coffee roasting 5.3. Case Study 3: Non-regenerative CHP-MGT

CO2 2.9% 12.6%

In Case Study 3 a non-regenerative MGT is used, with the replace-
H2Ο 3.6% 3.0%
N2 73.7% 71.1% ment of the existing NG modulating burner and the set-up of an in-line
O2 18.6% 3.6% afterburner in order to guarantee the same performance of the original
AR 1.3% 1.3% system, modulating the furnace temperature on the afterburner, and
R [J/kg K] 319 292 allowing a constant output power for the MGT, as reported in Fig. 8.
ρ [kg/Nm3] 1.15 1.26
Such a solution, that assumes the same AE-T100NG turbine but without
the recuperator, is characterized by a turbine outlet temperature of
at average temperature of 200 °C and that the exhaust gas temperature 460 °C [73,74], in comparison to 270 °C of the regenerative MGT of
of the regenerative gas turbine is 270 °C [73], the heat recovered can be Case 2, but also a higher fuel consumption due to lower electric effi-
calculated from: ciency (16% instead of 30% [73]). The relative profitability of re-
generative vs non-regenerative system depends upon the cost of natural
Q̇ = ṁ (h in−h drum ) (24) gas vs electricity. However, the coupling of the non-regenerative solu-
tion with the afterburner is more complicated than the regenerative
where Q̇ is the heat recovered; ṁ is the gas turbine exhaust gas flow one, requiring additional controls. With the assumed techno-economic
rate; hin is the enthalpy of the flue gases at the gas turbine outlet input data, the investment cost savings achieved with the MGT re-
temperature; hdrum is the enthalpy of the flue gases at the drum tem- cuperator are almost balanced by the costs for the afterburner, as shown
perature. in the cost components analysis of Table 6.
Taking data from a commercial 2 × 100 kWe MGT with a total ex-
haust gas flow rate of 1.3 kg/s and an outlet temperature of 270 °C, and 6. Energy and cost-benefit balances
the flue gas composition given in Table 3 [73,74], the heat recovered Q
is 58.3 MJ in a 10-min cycle (corresponding to useful thermal power Table 4 reports the electricity output in each 10-min cycle and the
from the MGT of 96 kWt). Considering the processed mass of 500 kg of corresponding NG consumption and savings for the three case studies.
green beans per 10-min cycle and heat demand of 1.5 MJ per kg of For the ORC scenario, the working fluid with highest power output has
green beans (input data from the coffee roasting plant under in- been selected (R1234ze of Table 3), while the electric efficiency of MGT
vestigation), the total heat required per roasting cycle is 750 MJ. This in Cases 2 and 3 is respectively 30% and 16% [73]. The NG saved in
means that more than 7% of the required energy can be obtained by the Cases 2 and 3 is calculated from Eq. (24) with discharged heat from
MGT. The 200 kWe MGT gas flow rate of about 3700 Nm3/h is close to MGT at temperature of 460 and 270 °C, respectively, and assuming NG
the flow rate discharged into atmosphere in this roasting process, which burners efficiency of 92%. Moreover, the temperature of the flue gases

Fig. 7. Schematic of CHP-MGT in Case Study 2 with electricity from the MGT fed to the grid or consumed onsite and cogenerated heat used for the roasting process.

790
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
Fig. 8. Schematic of Case Study 3: Non-regenerative MGT with replacement of the NG burners.
Table 4
Energy balance results for the proposed case studies with a roasting cycle of
10 min.
Symbol Unit Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Plant size PE kWe 32.5 200 200
NG saved NGS,C Nm3/cycle – 1.7 10.8
Electricity generated EG,C kWh/cycle 5.5 33.3 33.3
NG consumption NGC,C Nm3/cycle 0.8 10.6 19.9
after the afterburner is set at 350 °C in Cases 2 and 3, and to 400 °C in
Case 1, in order to achieve pressurized water set point supply tem-
perature of 150 °C. The NG increased consumption in the afterburner to
raise flue gases temperature from 350 to 400 °C in Case 1 is also re-
ported in Table 4.
Table 5 provides the investment cost figures for the main compo-
nents of the three systems. ORC costs are calculated using the thermo-
economic analysis of the previous section, while for the MGT, TES and
afterburner data from manufacturers are assumed. In all cases, electric
and civil works account for 18% of the total component costs, while
engineering and procurement account for 5% of the turn-key cost.
The cost-benefit balances during a 10-min roasting cycle are re-
ported in Table 6, assuming the actual coffee roasting capacity rate of
6 h of operation per day (corresponding to 36 cycles per day, 9360
cycles per year and 1560 h/year of roasting plant operation). O&M costs
are assumed of 12 Eur/MWh of electricity generated [20,74].
The NG supply cost is 0.385 Eur/Nm3 and the considered LHV is
10.5 kWh/Nm3 (input data from the roasting plant). The annual elec-
tricity demand of the plant is 800 MWh with a total cost of electricity
supply of Eur 150,000 per year (input data from the roasting plant). In
order to calculate the revenues from the electricity output, it is im-
portant to quantify the avoided cost (RE) of electricity generated onsite
by the CHP plants. According to the Italian legislative framework, CHP
plants below 500 kWe size for onsite generation are eligible for the ‘net
metering’ option [75], while plants between 500 kW and 10 MWe size
can opt for the ‘dedicated withdrawal’ option [76]. In the first case, all
excess generated electricity is fed into the grid and virtually stored, to
be withdrawn when the demand is higher than the generation. In the
second option, the electricity fed into the grid is sold at variable feed-in
prices (in the range of Eur 40–50 per MWh) as from Italian Energy
Authority regulations [76], and it is not profitable for small scale CHP
plants (unless heat demand is high and the plants are operated in heat
load following mode, being the electricity a ‘plus’ sold to the grid [77]).
In the ‘net metering’ option, the possibility to match the electric load
profile and avoid excess electricity fed into the grid is particularly im-
portant to maximize investment profitability. In fact, the avoided cost
791
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
for onsite generated electricity is as high as Eur 185 per MWh when the
generation output matches the load (all generated electricity is con-
sumed onsite with no exchange to the grid), and about Eur 75 per MWh
in net metering option, i.e., when there is a time switch between
electricity generation and demand, and the grid is used to store excess
electricity. In this case, the avoided cost corresponds only to the ‘gen-
eration’ component of the electricity tariff, while the distribution,
transmission and dispatchment component are still charged to the end
user [75]. In Table 6, assuming perfect matching between generation
and demand, we consider avoided cost of electricity of Eur 185 per
MWh.
The LCE values in Table 6 are calculated from Eq. (22), where NC is
the number of 10-min roasting cycles per year, and hE represents the
plant operating hours, assuming CHP operation and electricity gen-
eration only during the roasting process (i.e., operating hours
hE = 1560 h/year). The LCE at coffee roasting operating hours of 6, 12,
and 18 h/day is reported in Fig. 9, where the red horizontal lines re-
present the range of variation of avoided cost of electricity in the net
metering option (Eur 185 and 75 per MWh). The LCE decreases when
increasing the coffee roasting time, and at firm operation rate of 6 h/
day it is higher than the cost of electricity for all the case studies, being
the lower in Case 2, because of the higher electric efficiency of the
regenerative MGT in comparison to Case 3 and the assumed cost of NG.
As can be seen from Table 6, for the given production capacity and with
the assumed electricity and NG costs, the investment profitability is
quite low for all the scenarios. However, the results assume that the
CHP plant operates only during the coffee roasting process to avoid
discharged heat. As reported in the following section, the investment
profitability increases when operating the CHP plant baseload and in
net metering to the grid, in order to produce, on a yearly basis, the same
amount of electricity consumed by the plant.
7. Profitability and sensitivity analyses
In this section, the investment profitability of the three case studies
is compared, and the influence of the main techno-economic
Table 5
Cost figures for the scenarios under investigation.
Cost component Cost (kEur) Source
Heat exchanger for flue gases of coffee roasting (Case 1) 26 [68]
ORC + thermal energy storage (Case 1) 81 [68,78]
MGT (Cases 2 and 3) 110 [46,73]
MGT regenerator (Case 2) 50 [46,73]
Afterburner (for Case 3) 35 [79]
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

Table 6 one, at fixed annual electricity generation rate, and the lower value of
Main economic input data and results for the proposed case studies for a avoided cost of electricity.
roasting cycle of 10 min. The NPV (Net Present Value), IRR (Internal Rate of Return) and PBT
Symbol Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 (Payback Time) of the investment in Cases 1, 2 (with 100 kW and
200 kW MGTs) and 3 are reported in Figs. 10, 11 and 12, respectively,
Electricity avoided cost RE,C 1.02 6.17 6.17 for different coffee roasting operating hours and electricity avoided
Eur/cycle
costs for onsite generation. Only positive values of NPV and IRR, and
NG avoided cost Eur/ RNG,C 0.00 0.64 4.16
cycle BPT lower than 20 years have been reported in the figures. For Cases 2
Total revenues Eur/ RT,C = RE,C + RNG,C 1.02 6.81 10.33 and 3, the options of MGT electricity output equal to the firm electricity
cycle demand is taken, which means 8000 and 4000 operating hours per
NG supply cost Eur/ CNG,C 0.31 4.09 7.66
year, for the 100 and 200 kW plants, respectively. As expected, with
cycle
O&M Cost Eur/cycle CO&M,C 0.06 0.40 0.40
higher electricity costs and higher production intensities, the profit-
Total Cost Eur/cycle CT,C = CNG,C + CO&M,C 0.37 4.49 8.06 ability of the investment increases.
Total benefit Eur/cycle BC = RT,C − CT,C 0.65 2.32 2.27 However, with the assumed coffee roasting capacity of 6 h/day,
Investment (Eur) I 132,800 200,000 180,000 none of the three investments is profitable. In particular, Case 2 with
Payback cycles PBC = I/BC 204,308 86,300 79,400
the option of 100 and 200 kWe CHP would be profitable only with
Simple payback time PBT = PBC/NC 21.8 9.2 8.5
(years) (6h/day avoided cost of electricity above Eur 150 and 155 per MWh (against the
operation) values of Eur 120 and 146 per MWh resulting from the electricity de-
Levelized cost of LCE 216.6 186.1 288.2 mand profile of Table 7). In Case 1, because of the low ORC plant op-
electricity (Eur/
erating hours per year, and in absence of specific subsidies for energy
MWh)
efficiency measures, the investment would never be profitable; the
same occurs in Case 3, because of the low electric conversion efficiency
in comparison to the natural gas cost. When increasing the coffee
roasting production capacity to 12 h/day, Case 1 becomes profitable,
with IRR around 12%, while profitability of Cases 2 and 3 is highly
influenced by the avoided cost of electricity. In particular, with the
assumed values of electricity avoided costs, the IRR of Case 2 (200 kW)
is the only one above 5%, while both Case 2 with 100 kW and Case 3 are
still not profitable.
It is also important to note that an increased roasting production
rate improves the profitability of the combined plants by increasing the
electricity demand of the plant, and therefore the avoided cost of
electricity. This makes Case 2 profitable with both the 100 and 200 kW
sized MGT. At constant avoided cost of electricity, because of the lower
investment cost at fixed electricity output, the 100 kW option appears
better than the 200 kW one; however, as described in the previous
Fig. 9. LCE for the three case studies and at different coffee roasting production section, the 200 kW option offers better supply–demand matching,
rates; CHP operating hours only during the coffee roasting process (which hence a higher avoided cost of electricity with the ‘net metering’ option.
means avoided cost of electricity of Eur 185 per MWh); the red horizontal lines In Case 3, the profitability is lower than Case 2 and IRR is positive only
represent the min and max values for avoided cost of electricity in the net
at avoided cost of electricity above Eur 170 per MWh. When increasing
metering option (respectively with onsite generation vs. electricity demand
the production rate to the highest value of 18 h/day, Case 2 is always
matching and with exchange of electricity from the grid). (For interpretation of
profitable and presents IRR between 10 and 20% at different costs of
the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of this article.) electricity, while Case 2 has IRR above 10% at avoided costs of elec-
tricity higher than Eur 140 per MWh. At high avoided costs of elec-
tricity, the size of 100 kW is more competitive than the 200 kW one,
parameters is assessed. The investment profitability is influenced by the
reaching max values of IRR around 50%. Case 3 is profitable at an
avoided cost of electricity, roasting operating hours per year and, in
avoided cost of electricity > Eur 125 per MWh and presents an IRR up
case of the cogeneration with MGT, also by the cost of natural gas and
to around 40%, which are higher than the corresponding values of Case
by the electric load profile of the firm. In fact, in light of the con-
2 with the same 200 kW MGT.
sideration of the previous section, in the proposed case study the
Finally, Case 2 and Case 3 can be coupled to the waste heat recovery
avoided cost of electricity ranges between Eur 185 per MWh for a
system of Case 1. The profitability of coupled Case 1 + 2 or Case 1 + 3
perfect matching of generation and demand (no excess electricity fed
could be calculated considering the cumulated investment, fuel and
into the grid) and Eur 75 per MWh when there is a mismatch between
maintenance costs as from the separated case studies, and the cost
generation and demand and the grid is used as electric storage. A
savings resulting from the two combined cases. In this scenario, the
200 kWe MGT should be operated at rated power for 4000 h/year in
order to produce the same amount of electricity consumed by the firm.
Assuming an electricity load profile as from Table 7 (data taken from Table 7
the firm under investigation, with 85% of electricity consumed during Electric load profile of the coffee roasting firm (total
electric demand: 800 MWh/year).
the production process over 8 h/day and 5 days/week, and peak de-
mand of 408 kWe), the contemporaneity factor results of 65% and the Hours Average demand (kWe)
average avoided cost of electricity is Eur 146 per MWh. On the other
500 408
hand, a 100 kWe MGT with the same configuration should be operated 1000 340
8000 h/year to match the total electricity demand, and the con- 500 272
temporaneity factor would be 40% in this case (average avoided cost of 2000 40
electricity of Eur 120 per MWh). There is hence a trade-off between the 2000 20
2860 0
lower investment cost of a 100 kWe CHP in comparison to the 200 kWe

792
A.M. Pantaleo et al. Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796

Fig. 10. Net Present Value (NPV) for the three case studies at different avoided costs of electricity and coffee roasting operating hours. Top left: Case Study 2 with
MGT of 200 kWe (4000 h/year of CHP operation); Top right: Case Study 2 with MGT of 100 kWe (8000 h/year of CHP operation); Bottom left: Case Study 1 with ORC
plant of 33 kW; Bottom right: Case Study 3 with MGT of 200 kWe (4000 h/year of CHP operation).

Fig. 11. Internal rate of return (IRR) at different avoided costs of electricity and coffee roasting operating hours. Top left: Case Study 2 with MGT of 200 kWe
(4000 h/year of CHP operation); Top right: Case Study 2 with MGT of 100 kWe (8000 h/year of CHP operation); Bottom left: Case Study 1 with ORC plant of 33 kW;
Bottom right: Case Study 3 with MGT of 200 kWe (4000 h/year of CHP operation).

793
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
Fig. 12. Payback time (PBT) for the three case studies at different avoided costs of electricity and coffee roasting operating hours. Top left: Case Study 2 with MGT of
200 kWe (4000 h/year of CHP operation); Top right: Case Study 2 with MGT of 100 kWe (8000 h/year of CHP operation); Bottom left: Case Study 1 with ORC plant of
32.5 kW; Bottom right: Case Study 3 with MGT of 200 kWe (4000 h/year of CHP operation).
discharged heat from the MGT, after feeding the roasting process, could
still be recovered in the thermal storage to feed the ORC, so increasing
the quantity of thermal energy recovered and the electricity output
from the ORC. This is particularly valid if the MGT is operated baseload,
so partially compensating the intermittent heat supply from the after-
burners. A further option to be explored is a baseload operation of the
modulating furnaces of the roasting process, which could feed the ORC
with the excess heat from the intermittent roasting process. This option
could allow higher thermal power and heat temperature to the ORC, so
increasing its conversion efficiency and reducing thermal energy sto-
rage size and costs. In this manner, the modulating gas furnaces could
feed both the coffee roasters and the ORC engine. Also in this case, the
relative profitability of such configuration depends mostly on the nat-
ural gas/electricity cost ratio and on the process production capacity.
8. Conclusions
In this paper, the integration of three different cogeneration solu-
tions and the implementation of waste-heat recovery in a rotating-drum
batch coffee-roasting process with partial hot-gas recycling have been
proposed and assessed from both technical and economic perspectives.
For the latter, cost-assessment methodologies have been adopted in
order to compare the profitability of the solutions integrated into the
roasting process. A case study of a major Italian coffee processing plant
has been considered, with a production capacity of 3000 kg per hour
and an operating cycle of 6 h per day. Specifically, the three in-
vestigated CHP solutions/cases are: (1) intermittent waste-heat re-
covery from the hot flue gases via thermal energy storage (TES) and
conversion to electricity by an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) engine; (2)
regenerative topping micro gas-turbine (MGT) coupled to the existing
modulating gas burner to generate hot air for the roasting process and
electricity for onsite consumption; and (3) non-regenerative topping
MGT with direct recovery of the turbine outlet air for the roasting
794
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
process by means of an afterburner thus modulating the heat demand of
the roasting process. The novelty of the paper relies on the proposal of a
novel system configuration for intermittent waste-heat recovery in the
coffee roasting sector that includes the selection of a thermal store size
and optimal ORC engine design and operation (temperature level,
system size and working fluid); the approach can be extended to other
processes where intermittent waste heat is available.
MGTs are considered the conventional choice for implementing
cogeneration solutions in these types of roasting plants. Nevertheless,
the techno-economic feasibility for utilizing waste heat from the
afterburner in ORC engines was also investigated in the present work,
and compared to a standard investment in a natural-gas MGT. The re-
sults report a payback time (PBT) for the ORC solution (Case 1) ranging
between 5 and 11 years for a roasting plant with a high production
capacity (18 h per day) and avoided costs of electricity ranging between
110 and 185 Eur/MWh. At a reduced production capacity of 12 h/day
and an electricity price of 120–185 Eur/MWh, the PBT increases to 9
and 16 years, whereas at an even lower production capacity of 6 h/day
the investment is found to be not profitable. Alternatively, based on an
electricity price in the range 140–185 Eur/MWh, a benchmarking in-
vestment in a regenerative MGT operated baseload and in net metering
to cover the annual onsite electricity demand (Case 2) leads to PBTs in
the range 4–12 years for a 200 kW unit and 2–10 years for a 100 kW
unit when the production capacity is high (18 h/day), and in the range
4.5–20 or 2.5–13 years at 12 h/day rate, respectively. At a low pro-
duction rate, the PBT increase to 5–12 or 2.5–7 years for the 200 and
100 kW sized MGTs, respectively (at an electricity price ranging be-
tween Eur 155 and 185 per MWh). At electricity costs below Eur
140 per MWh (for production rates of 18 and 12 h/day) and below Eur
155 per MWh (for a production rate of 6 h/day) the investment is not
profitable. Another investment option involving a non-regenerative
MGT has also been explored, proving to be profitable only at the highest
roasting production rates of 18 h/day (PBTs ranging from 2 to 10 years
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
when varying the electricity price in the interval of Eur 125–185 per
MWh); at 12 h/day of production capacity this was profitable only if the
electricity price is higher than Eur 170 per MWh.
It can be concluded that, with the production rates and NG/elec-
tricity costs of the proposed case study, none of the proposed invest-
ments are profitable, however, when increasing the coffee roasting
production rate to at least 12 h/day, the most profitable option is that of
waste-heat recovery via an ORC engine, with an internal rate of return
(IRR) in the range 16–20% according to the electricity price (Eur
155–185 per MWh), while the 200-kW MGT and an avoided price of Eur
145 per MWh lead to an IRR of 8%. Further options of interest could be
explored when coupling Cases 2 or 3 with Case 1, in order to recover
further thermal energy from the MGT to feed the ORC engine while
reducing the variation of the waste heat supply to the ORC when op-
erating the MGT baseload. In this case, the matching between onsite
generation and electric demand is also important to increase the
avoided cost of electricity in the ‘net metering’ option. The lessons and
insights from this work are transferable to other, similar production
processes where waste heat at variable temperature and flow rate is
available, which is quite typical of food sector.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the UK Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [grant number EP/P004709/1].
Data supporting this publication can be obtained on request from cep-
lab@imperial.ac.uk. A short version of the paper was presented at
ICAE2017, 21-24 August, Cardiff, UK. This paper is a substantial ex-
tension of the short version of the conference paper [80].
References
[1] Markides CN. The role of pumped and waste heat technologies in a high-efficiency
sustainable energy future for the UK. Appl Therm Eng 2013;53(2):197–209. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2012.02.037.
[2] Monforti-Ferrario F, Pinedo Pascua I. Energy use in the EU food sector: state of play
and opportunities for improvement. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union; 2015.
[3] Fischer JR, Blackman JE, Finnell JA. Industry and energy: challenges and oppor-
tunities. Eng Technol Sustain World 2007;4:8–9.
[4] Wang L. Energy efficiency technologies for sustainable food processing. Energy Effi
2014;7:791–810.
[5] Oyewunmi O, Kirmse C, Pantaleo AM, Markides CN. Performance of working fluid
mixtures in an ORC-CHP system at different heat demand levels. Energy Convers
Manage 2017;148:1508–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2017.05.078.
[6] Amón R, Maulhardt M, Wong T, Kazama D, Simmons CW. Waste heat and water
recovery opportunities in California tomato paste processing. Appl Therm Eng
2015;78:525–32.
[7] Fang H, Xia J, Zhu K, Su Y, Jiang Y. Industrial waste heat utilization for low tem-
perature district heating. Energy Policy 2013;62:236–46.
[8] Lecompte S, Huisseune H, van den Broek M, Vanslambrouck B, De Paepe M. Review
of organic Rankine cycle (ORC) architectures for waste heat recovery. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:448–61.
[9] Reddy CCS, Naidu SV, Rangaiah GP. Waste heat recovery methods and technolo-
gies. Chem Eng 2013;120(1):28–38.
[10] Markides CN. Low-concentration solar-power systems based on organic Rankine
cycles for distributed-scale applications: Overview and further developments. Front
Energy Res 2015;3(47):1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2015.00047.
[11] Backhaus S, Swift GW. A thermoacoustic-Stirling heat engine: Detailed study. J
Acoust Soc Am 2000;107:3148–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.429343.
[12] Markides CN, Smith TCB. A dynamic model for the efficiency optimization of an
oscillatory low grade heat engine. Energy 2011;36:6967–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.energy.2011.08.051.
[13] Solanki R, Galindo A, Markides CN. Dynamic modelling of a two[HYPHEN]phase
thermofluidic oscillator for efficient low grade heat utilization: Effect of fluid in-
ertia. Appl Energy 2012;89:156–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.
01.007.
[14] Markides CN, Solanki R, Galindo A. Working fluid selection for a two-phase ther-
mofluidic oscillator: Effect of thermodynamic properties. Appl Energy
2014;124:167–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.02.042.
[15] Oyewunmi OA, Kirmse CJW, Haslam AJ, Müller EA, Markides CN. Working-fluid
selection and performance investigation of a two-phase single-reciprocating-piston
heat-conversion engine. Appl Energy 2017;186:376–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.008.
[16] Kirmse CJW, Oyewunmi OA, Taleb AI, Haslam AJ, Markides CN. Two-phase single-
reciprocating-piston heat conversion engine: Non-linear dynamic modelling. Appl
795
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
Energy 2017;186:359–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.140.
[17] Kirmse CJW, Oyewunmi OA, Haslam AJ, Markides CN. Comparison of a novel or-
ganic-fluid thermofluidic heat converter and an organic Rankine cycle heat engine.
Energies 2016;9:47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en9070479.
[18] Liu Y, Cheng Z, Wang J, Yang J, Wang Q. System design and thermodynamic
analysis of a sintering-driven organic Rankine cycle. In: 8th International con-
ference on applied energy, Beijing, China; 2016.
[19] Lecompte S, Oyewunmi OA, Markides CN, Lazova M, Kaya A, van den Broek M, De
Paepe M. Case study of an organic Rankine cycle (ORC) for waste heat recovery
from an electric arc furnace (EAF). Energies 2017;10(5):649. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/en10050649.
[20] Camporeale S, Pantaleo A, Ciliberti P, Fortunato B. Cycle configuration analysis and
techno-economic sensitivity of biomass externally fired gas turbine with bottoming
ORC. Energy Convers Manage 2015;105:1239–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2015.08.069.
[21] Camporeale S, Ciliberti P, Torresi M, Fortunato B, Pantaleo A. Externally fired micro
gas turbine and ORC bottoming cycle: optimal biomass/natural gas CHP config-
uration for residential energy demand. J Eng Gas Turbines Power
2016;139(4):041401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4034721.
[22] Stolze S, Mikkelsen J, Lorentzen B, Petersen M, Ovale B. Waste-heat recovery in
batch processes using heat storage. J Energy Res Technol 1995;117:142–9.
[23] Fernández I, Renedo CJ, Pérez SF, Ortiz A, Mañana M. A review: Energy recovery in
batch processes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:2260–77.
[24] Parliament TH. An overview of coffee roasting. Caffeinated Beverages
2000:188–201.
[25] Atkins MJ, Walmsley MR, Neale JR. Integrating heat recovery from milk powder
spray dryer exhausts in the dairy industry. Appl Therm Eng 2010;31:2101–6.
[26] Scotch Whiskey Research Institute. Cutting costs and carbon; 2010.
[27] Uhlenbruck S, Vogel R, Lucas K. Heat integration of batch processes. Chem Eng
Technol 2000;23:226–9.
[28] Ivanov B, Bancheva N. Optimal reconstruction of batch chemical plants with regard
to maximum heat recuperation. Comput Chem Eng 1994;18:313–7.
[29] Parthanadee P, Buddhakulsomsiri J. Production efficiency improvement in batch
production system using value stream mapping and simulation: a case study of the
roasted and ground coffee industry. Prod Plan Control 2014;25(5):425–46.
[30] Krummenacher P, Favrat D. Indirect and mixed direct-indirect heat integration of
batch processes based on pinch analysis. Int J Appl Thermodyn 2001;4:135–43.
[31] Chen CL, Ciou YJ. Design and optimization of indirect energy storage systems for
batch process plants. Ind Eng Chem 2008;47:4817–29.
[32] De Boer R, Smeding SF, Bach PW. Heat storage systems for use in an industrial
batch process: a case study. In: International conference on thermal energy storage,
New Jersey, US; 2006.
[33] Majozi T. Minimization of energy use in multipurpose batch plants using heat
storage: an aspect of cleaner production. J Clean Prod 2009;17:945–50.
[34] Schenker S. Investigations on the hot air roasting of coffee. Zurich (Switzerland):
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology; 2000.
[35] Nagaraju VD, Murthy CT, Ramalakshmi K, Srinivasa Rao PN. Studies on roasting of
coffee beans in a sprouted bed. J Food Eng 1997;31:263–70.
[36] Bottazzi D, Farina S, Milani M, Montorsi L. A numerical approach for the analysis of
the coffee roasting process. J Food Eng 2012;112:243–52.
[37] Jansen GA. Coffee roasting, magic, art, science: physical changes and chemical
reactions. Munich (Germany): SV Corp Media; 2006.
[38] Schwartzberg H. Modelling exothermic heat generation during the roasting of
coffee. In: 21st International conference on coffee science, Montpellier, France;
2006.
[39] Schwartzberg H. Effect of the characteristic behaviour of roaster blowers on bean
heating in batch roasters. In: 9th International conference on engineering and food,
Montpellier, France; 2004.
[40] De Monte M, Padoano E, Pozzetto D. Waste heat recovery in a coffee roasting plant.
Appl Therm Eng 2003;23:1033–44.
[41] Hernández JA, Heyd B, Trystram G. Prediction of brightness and surface area ki-
netics during coffee roasting. J Food Eng 2008;89:156–63.
[42] Burmester K, Eggers R. Heat and mass transfer during the coffee drying process. J
Food Eng 2010;99:430–6.
[43] Hernández JA, Heyd B, Irles C, Valdovinos B, Trystram G. Analysis of the heat and
mass transfer during coffee batch roasting. J Food Eng 2007;78:1141–8.
[44] Valdovinos-Tijerino B. Etude de la torréfaction du café: Modélisation et
développement des outils pour maîtriser la qualité du produit en ligne Thése de
Doctorat Paris (France): Université Pierre Marie Curie; 2005.
[45] Schwartzberg H. Batch coffee roasting; roasting energy use; reducing that use. In:
Advances in food processing engineering research and applications. Springer; 2013.
p. 173–95.
[46] Milani M, Montorsi L, Terzi S. Numerical analysis of the heat recovery efficiency for
the post-combustion flue gas treatment in a coffee roaster plant. Energy
2017;141:729–43.
[47] World Health Organization. WHO air quality guidelines for particulate matter,
ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. WHO Press; 2005.
[48] Sullivan JL, Kafka FL, Ferrari LM. An evaluation of catalytic and direct fired
afterburners for coffee and chicory roasting odors. J Air Pollut Control Assoc
1965;15(12):583–6.
[49] Ibrahim HA. Fouling in heat exchangers. In: MATLAB-A fundamental tool for sci-
entific computing and engineering applications; 2012. p. 57–96.
[50] Müller-Steinhagen H, Malayeri MR, Watkinson AP. Heat exchanger fouling:
Environmental impacts. Heat Transf Eng 2009;30(10–11):773–6.
[51] Steinhagen R, Müller-Steinhagen H, Maani K. Problems and costs due to heat ex-
changer fouling in New Zealand industries. Heat Transf Eng 1993;14(1):19–30.
A.M. Pantaleo et al.
[52] Stamp J, Majozi T. Optimum heat storage design for heat integrated multipurpose
batch plants. Energy 2011;36:5119–31.
[53] Chen CL, Ciou YJ. Design of indirect heat recovery systems with variable tem-
perature storage for batch plants. Ind Eng Chem 2009;48:4375–87.
[54] Dal Magro F, Jimenez-Arreola M, Romagnoli A. Improving energy recovery effi-
ciency by retrofitting a PCM-based technology to an ORC system operating under
thermal power fluctuations. Appl Energy 2017;208:972–85.
[55] Tsatsaronis G. Thermoeconomic analysis and optimization of energy systems. Progr
Energy Combust Sci 1993;19(3):227–57[ISSN 0360-1285].
[56] Pozna A, Ivanov B, Bancheva N. Design of a heat exchanger network for a system of
batch vessels. Hung J Ind Chem 1998;26:203–11.
[57] Kelly B, Kearney D. Thermal storage commercial plant design study for a 2-tank
indirect molten salt system. Tech rep, NREL/SR-550-40166, July 2006; 2006.
[58] Naghavi M, Ong K, Badruddin I, Mehrali M, Silakhori M, Metselaar H. Theoretical
model of an evacuated tube heat pipe solar collector integrated with phase change
material. Energy 2015;91:911–24.
[59] Freeman J, Guarracino I, Kalogirou SA, Markides CN. A small-scale solar organic
Rankine cycle combined heat and power system with integrated thermal energy
storage. Appl Therm Eng 2017;127:1543–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
applthermaleng.2017.07.163.
[60] Casati E, Galli A, Colonna P. Thermal energy storage for solar-powered organic
Rankine cycle engines. Sol Energy 2013;96:205–19.
[61] Freeman J, Hellgardt K, Markides CN. An assessment of solar-powered organic
Rankine cycle systems for combined heating and power in UK domestic applica-
tions. Appl Energy 2015;138:605–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.
10.035.
[62] Freeman J, Hellgardt K, Markides CN. Working fluid selection and electrical per-
formance optimisation of a domestic solar-ORC combined heat and power system
for year-round operation in the UK. Appl Energy 2017;186:291–303. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.041.
[63] Oyewunmi OA, Taleb AI, Haslam AJ, Markides CN. On the use of SAFT-VR Mie for
assessing large-glide fluorocarbon working-fluid mixtures in organic Rankine cy-
cles. Appl Energy 2016;163:263–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.
10.040.
[64] Lampe M, Groß J, Bardow A. Simultaneous process and working fluid optimisation
for organic Rankine cycles (ORC) using PC-SAFT. Comput Aid Chem Eng
2012;30:572–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59519-5.50115-5.
[65] Lampe M, Kirmse C, Sauer E, Stavrou M, Gross J, Bardow A. Computer-aided mo-
lecular design of ORC working fluids using PC-SAFT. Comput Aid Chem Eng
2014;34:357–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63433-7.50044-4.
[66] White MT, Oyewunmi OA, Haslam AJ, Markides CN. Industrial waste-heat recovery
796
Applied Energy 225 (2018) 782–796
through integrated computer-aided working-fluid and ORC system optimisation
using SAFT-γ Mie. Energy Convers Manage 2017;150:851–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.enconman.2017.03.048.
[67] Byrd R, Hribar M, Nocedal J. An interior point algorithm for large-scale nonlinear
programming. SIAM J Opt 1999;9:877–900.
[68] Seider WD, Seader JD, Lewin DR, Widagdo S. Product & process design principles:
synthesis, analysis and evaluation. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
[69] Astolfi M. Techno-economic optimization of low temperature CSP Systems based on
ORC with screw expanders. Energy Proc 2015;69:1100–12.
[70] Oyewunmi OA, Markides CN. Thermo-economic and heat transfer optimization of
working-fluid mixtures in a low-temperature organic Rankine cycle system.
Energies 2016;9(6):448. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en9060448.
[71] Oyewunmi OA, Taleb AI, Haslam AJ, Markides CN. An assessment of working-fluid
mixtures using SAFT-VR Mie for use in organic Rankine cycle systems for waste-
heat recovery. Comput Therm Sci 2014;6(4):301–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1615/.
2014011116.
[72] Oyewunmi OA, Lecompte S, De Paepe M, Markides CN. Thermoeconomic analysis
of recuperative sub- and transcritical organic Rankine cycle systems. Energy Proc
2017;129:58–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.187.
[73] Datasheet of Ansaldo Energy AE-T100-NG microturbine. < https://www.
ansaldoenergia.com/business-lines/new-units/microturbines/ae-t100ng > .
[74] Borello D, Pantaleo AM, Caucci M, De Caprariis B, De Filippis P, Shah N. Modeling
and experimental study of a small scale olive pomace gasifier for cogeneration:
energy and profitability analysis. Energies 2017;10(12):1930. http://dx.doi.org/10.
3390/en10121930.
[75] Italian Energy Regulator Deliberation 570/R/EFR. Testo integrato delle modalità e
delle condizioni tecnico-economiche per l'erogazione del servizio di scambio sul
posto; 2012. < https://www.autorita.energia.it/allegati/docs/12/570-12TISP_ti.
pdf > [in Italian, accessed 1/1/18].
[76] Italian Energy Regulator Deliberation 280/2007 and GSE website < https://www.
gse.it/servizi-per-te/supporto/ritiro-dedicato/informazioni-generali > [in Italian,
accessed 1/1/18].
[77] Pantaleo AM, Camporeale SM, Shah N. Thermo-economic assessment of externally
fired micro-gas turbine fired by natural gas and biomass: applications in Italy.
Energy Convers Manage 2013;75:202–13.
[78] Personal communication with Zuccato Energia. < www.zuccatoenergia.it > .
[79] Personal communications with Toper. www.toper.com.
[80] Pantaleo AM, Oyewunmi OA, Fordham J, Markides CN. Intermittent waste heat
recovery: investment profitability of ORC cogeneration for batch, gas-fired coffee
roasting. Energy Proc 2017;129:575–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.
09.209.